Opinion
June 30, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Mary McGowan Davis, J.).
There is no merit to defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to be present during a material stage of the proceedings when the court conducted a voir dire sidebar conference with a prospective juror. Quite apart from the fact that the record is silent with respect to whether or not defendant was present, no prejudice, or violation of People v Sloan ( 79 N.Y.2d 386) can be discerned as the juror was later peremptorily excused (see, People v. Rodriguez, 203 A.D.2d 92). Defendant's claim concerning the court's alleged violation of the jury selection procedure mandated by CPL 270.15 (3) is unpreserved for appellate review (People v. Ortiz, 69 A.D.2d 825), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. Were we to do so, we would find that defendant suffered no prejudice (People v. Howard, 200 A.D.2d 538). Defendant also failed to preserve his Batson (Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79) claim concerning the prosecutor's peremptory challenge to prospective juror Ms. Boone (People v. Smith, 81 N.Y.2d 875; People v Garcia, 200 A.D.2d 189). In any event, the record supports the court's conclusion that the prosecutor articulated race-neutral reasons for excluding several potential black jurors (People v Okehoffurum, 201 A.D.2d 508; People v. Doran, 195 A.D.2d 364). Nor do we find that the court's Sandoval ruling constituted an abuse of discretion where, as herein, defendant had 25 convictions, and the court permitted the prosecutor to elicit defendant's 3 felony convictions and 10 misdemeanor convictions but prohibited any inquiry into the nature of the convictions or the underlying facts (see, People v. Ellis, 183 A.D.2d 534, affd 81 N.Y.2d 854; People v. Cowell, 170 A.D.2d 343, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 993).
Defendant has also failed to preserve for appellate review, as a matter of law, his claim concerning the court's reasonable doubt instruction and failure to sua sponte instruct the jury on the statutory definitions of "deprive" and "appropriate" (see, People v. Uraca, 195 A.D.2d 377, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 728), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find that the charge, as a whole, apprised the jury of the appropriate principles of law (People v. Dingle, 168 A.D.2d 281, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 960). Defendant's remaining claims are without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.